Leftists who now control the Democratic Party in America can point to a successful model which they can use to take over the country.
It is called 'the Colorado Model,' a highly successful experiment involving rich liberals who funnel big bucks into a state to bury the GOP and insure that liberal/Leftist Democrats are elected to office.
So successful the model has been in Colorado that Democrats are considering implementing the same plan nationally.
Contrary to popular perception, liberals are clearly NOT those who 'empathize with the poor' but are elitists who believe the masses should live by a different set of rules than their own.
Most of them are affluent and prescribe a very Spartan manner of living for average citizens while they themselves drive the largest limos and live in mansions, spewing carbon based trash into the air like no 'average citizen.'
They have no intention of giving that up once they force the rest of us into serfdom with limited choices as to how we control our own lives. Had they had honorable intentions they would have already given up the lavish lifestyles.
But Al Gore, Barbra Streisand, Susan Sarandon, and thousands of other rich liberals continue to demand the best of everything the world has to offer while lecturing the rest of us about driving SUVs, running our air conditioning, or even using Albuterol to control asthma--one of the latest casualties of the false 'global warming' hysteria.
One of the worst offenders is Democrat elitist operative George Soros, the billionaire who has pumped multi-millions of dollars into the Democratic Party for the single purpose of first controlling the Party, and then controlling America.
The details of the plan for a national takeover read like a scene from a futuristic science-fiction novel. Barack Obama has even spoken of a large, well-trained 'citizen army' that would not only function along side of the U.S. military but possess all of the equipment to be just as powerful.
So don't look now, but liberal storm troopers may be on the way!
Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
Dark Storm Clouds Gather Over America
As never before since World War II, America faces one of her darkest hours as the storm clouds gather from a myriad of sources intent on destroying the notion of a free, constitutional Republic.
The problem is that this time around, the threat is much worse.
During WW II the threat was from the outside as totalitarian forces pressed against us from both the East and the West. Europe and Japan were a formidable foe, but Americans stood fast upon the principles of liberty.
Today, however, the threat is two-fold. The threat is both from the outside and the inside.
At the same time that terrorism poses a significant threat to the stability and existence of the West, America is faced with the prospects of being forced to fight some of its own citizens who are infected with the single-headed notion of subverting the Constitution and declaring that no right is absolute or guaranteed.
Numerous free speech cases prove the point, as well as the current national debate on Second Amendment rights about which the U.S. Supreme Court will issue a decision this month.
As the nation fights for its survival on these crucial fronts, we are hit broadside simultaneously with a brazen attempt by Democrats in Congress to embark upon a course of action which we as a nation have always rejected outright as antithetical to freedom and human liberty--the attempt to nationalize the oil industry.
America was founded upon the principles of a free society. This means that markets and business and industrial enterprises are to be free. Government has never been viewed in this country as an acceptable proprietor. Rather, government has always been viewed as an impartial referee to private enterprise, making sure that all business interests play by the same rules.
Central to the concept of a free society is the importance of the limited role of government. Men and women through the centuries who sought liberty after having suffered from the cruel and inhuman oppression of powerful government insisted that the only legitimate role of government was to protect the liberties inherent to human beings--liberties that are God-given.
For government to become involved in the ownership and operation of what private enterprise can do on its own has always been considered illegitimate. When government gets into the business of proprietorship, human liberty always suffers in the end.
Yet some of the major leaders in the majority Party in Congress insist that this is precisely where they wish to take the country. They want government to get into the business of owning and operating business.
This overt socialistic notion is echoed by many in modern academia. In fact, this has been their goal since the 1960s when radicals decided that private enterprise is evil and government is good.
Not only that, but some voices within academia, in addition to a few major columnists that publish in the mainstream media, have openly called for limitations on free speech. As a member of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in British Columbia said in the Mark Steyn trial, 'Freedom of speech is an American concept and thus, I have no interest in it.'
This was in Canada, true enough. But some Americans are echoing these sentiments by stating that perhaps our country is worse off because it allows freedom of speech, and thus, we would be much better off placing restrictions upon it, just as our Canadian and European neighbors are doing.
It is not mere chance that at the very same time we face these significant threats to our very way of life, along comes a political candidate with rock star status, the followers of whom often compare to a heaven-sent Messiah.
This candidate has embraced positions throughout his short career in Illinois and the U.S. Senate that fall perfectly in line with the various schemes launched by other members of his Party to restrict human liberty and downplay the significance and preeminence of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.
It is not coincidental that Barack Obama is bankrolled by one George Soros, the atheistic billionaire and Democrat party operative. Soros is a one-man dark cloud machine in his own right, casting a long shadow of foreboding on all that he touches. He is anti-free markets, anti-liberty, anti-Constitution, anti-Christian and Jew, and anti-American.
And with regard to Obama, Soros is the power behind the throne.
If Obama is elected, Soros will have completed at least 75% of what he set out to do--control the Democratic Party, get one of his gophers elected to the Presidency, and make sure his foot soldiers in the American version of the Bolshevik Revolution stay in power in Congress.
At that point all he has left to do is to use his comrades in the government to ram through Congress the single largest shift in ideology and policy to take place in America since founding of the Republic. And he will have absolutely no opposition from the President or the minority Party since the GOP is expected to lose even more seats in both the House and Senate.
Alarmist nonsense, you say? Just wait until you see the next installment in this series which will examine Barack Obama's ties to George Soros and extremist Muslim Jihadists, including Hamas and Hezbollah.
The problem is that this time around, the threat is much worse.
During WW II the threat was from the outside as totalitarian forces pressed against us from both the East and the West. Europe and Japan were a formidable foe, but Americans stood fast upon the principles of liberty.
Today, however, the threat is two-fold. The threat is both from the outside and the inside.
At the same time that terrorism poses a significant threat to the stability and existence of the West, America is faced with the prospects of being forced to fight some of its own citizens who are infected with the single-headed notion of subverting the Constitution and declaring that no right is absolute or guaranteed.
Numerous free speech cases prove the point, as well as the current national debate on Second Amendment rights about which the U.S. Supreme Court will issue a decision this month.
As the nation fights for its survival on these crucial fronts, we are hit broadside simultaneously with a brazen attempt by Democrats in Congress to embark upon a course of action which we as a nation have always rejected outright as antithetical to freedom and human liberty--the attempt to nationalize the oil industry.
America was founded upon the principles of a free society. This means that markets and business and industrial enterprises are to be free. Government has never been viewed in this country as an acceptable proprietor. Rather, government has always been viewed as an impartial referee to private enterprise, making sure that all business interests play by the same rules.
Central to the concept of a free society is the importance of the limited role of government. Men and women through the centuries who sought liberty after having suffered from the cruel and inhuman oppression of powerful government insisted that the only legitimate role of government was to protect the liberties inherent to human beings--liberties that are God-given.
For government to become involved in the ownership and operation of what private enterprise can do on its own has always been considered illegitimate. When government gets into the business of proprietorship, human liberty always suffers in the end.
Yet some of the major leaders in the majority Party in Congress insist that this is precisely where they wish to take the country. They want government to get into the business of owning and operating business.
This overt socialistic notion is echoed by many in modern academia. In fact, this has been their goal since the 1960s when radicals decided that private enterprise is evil and government is good.
Not only that, but some voices within academia, in addition to a few major columnists that publish in the mainstream media, have openly called for limitations on free speech. As a member of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in British Columbia said in the Mark Steyn trial, 'Freedom of speech is an American concept and thus, I have no interest in it.'
This was in Canada, true enough. But some Americans are echoing these sentiments by stating that perhaps our country is worse off because it allows freedom of speech, and thus, we would be much better off placing restrictions upon it, just as our Canadian and European neighbors are doing.
It is not mere chance that at the very same time we face these significant threats to our very way of life, along comes a political candidate with rock star status, the followers of whom often compare to a heaven-sent Messiah.
This candidate has embraced positions throughout his short career in Illinois and the U.S. Senate that fall perfectly in line with the various schemes launched by other members of his Party to restrict human liberty and downplay the significance and preeminence of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.
It is not coincidental that Barack Obama is bankrolled by one George Soros, the atheistic billionaire and Democrat party operative. Soros is a one-man dark cloud machine in his own right, casting a long shadow of foreboding on all that he touches. He is anti-free markets, anti-liberty, anti-Constitution, anti-Christian and Jew, and anti-American.
And with regard to Obama, Soros is the power behind the throne.
If Obama is elected, Soros will have completed at least 75% of what he set out to do--control the Democratic Party, get one of his gophers elected to the Presidency, and make sure his foot soldiers in the American version of the Bolshevik Revolution stay in power in Congress.
At that point all he has left to do is to use his comrades in the government to ram through Congress the single largest shift in ideology and policy to take place in America since founding of the Republic. And he will have absolutely no opposition from the President or the minority Party since the GOP is expected to lose even more seats in both the House and Senate.
Alarmist nonsense, you say? Just wait until you see the next installment in this series which will examine Barack Obama's ties to George Soros and extremist Muslim Jihadists, including Hamas and Hezbollah.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Hillary's Pipe Dream
What was once a foregone conclusion for Hillary Clinton a year ago has now become but a pipe dream. For all intents and purposes, the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination is over, and Barack Obama has won.
With the bosses of the Democratic Party making the decision on Saturday to essentially ignore the votes of the hundreds of thousands of Democrats who voted in Florida and Michigan, Hillary's chances for wresting the nomination away from Obama are next to nil.
Instead of honoring the wishes of the voters in the two states in question, the Democratic Party bosses decided to divide up the delegates, giving Hillary less than what the voters indicated and Obama more than he deserved.
This 'compromise plan' has practically insured Hillary's defeat for the nomination. And her supporters know it. One supporter in particular had to hauled out of the room due to her vehement protests.
Hillary has vowed to take the matter to the Convention floor. There is nothing wrong with that, except for the fact that it scares the Party elites into a state of panic.
However, the numbers are not on Hillary's side. Although she racked up a major win in Puerto Rico on Sunday, it will not matter come Tuesday as the Democratic primaries come to a close. Obama stands to win what's left, and that will give him enough delegates to put him over the top.
Don't count on Hillary to bow out gracefully, however. Her supporters are deeply convinced they got the shaft by the Democratic Party big wigs on Saturday, and they are boiling mad. Look for a fight on the Convention floor unless Hillary finds a way to swallow up her loss and drop out of the race prior to the Convention.
But this will not do a thing to help soothe the hurt feelings on the part of Clinton supporters. So convinced are they about their candidate's abilities and credentials that a significant number will support McCain if Hillary isn't the nominee.
Although some believe that Obama's charming public manner will be enough to be an opiate for the masses, it would be a huge mistake to discount the candidate's glaring weaknesses and liabilities, as well as the fact that he is losing the white vote, the Jewish vote, and the Hispanic vote.
Thus, Obama's chances of winning key states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are shaky at best. His best chance is Pennsylvania, but he has already insulted millions in the state by portraying them essentially as cousin-humpin' rednecks who cling to their guns and religion out of fear.
Florida's large senior population, which includes a large number of Jews, will be a big problem for Obama. And this is not even taking into consideration Florida's massive Cuban-American population that already views the Senator with deep suspicion.
Ohio is a toss-up. But McCain has as good a chance as any to beat Obama in a state that has historically gone Republican in key elections.
And as for Hillary, perhaps the only vindication she can get out of the whole thing is knowing that in attempting to appease the Obama people, the elites within her Party have probably handed McCain a gift on a golden platter. She tried to tell them Obama can't win the general election.
It truly makes one wonder if the Party bosses are as concerned about winning the election as they are about avoiding causing an uproar in their African-American base by denying Obama the nomination.
With the bosses of the Democratic Party making the decision on Saturday to essentially ignore the votes of the hundreds of thousands of Democrats who voted in Florida and Michigan, Hillary's chances for wresting the nomination away from Obama are next to nil.
Instead of honoring the wishes of the voters in the two states in question, the Democratic Party bosses decided to divide up the delegates, giving Hillary less than what the voters indicated and Obama more than he deserved.
This 'compromise plan' has practically insured Hillary's defeat for the nomination. And her supporters know it. One supporter in particular had to hauled out of the room due to her vehement protests.
Hillary has vowed to take the matter to the Convention floor. There is nothing wrong with that, except for the fact that it scares the Party elites into a state of panic.
However, the numbers are not on Hillary's side. Although she racked up a major win in Puerto Rico on Sunday, it will not matter come Tuesday as the Democratic primaries come to a close. Obama stands to win what's left, and that will give him enough delegates to put him over the top.
Don't count on Hillary to bow out gracefully, however. Her supporters are deeply convinced they got the shaft by the Democratic Party big wigs on Saturday, and they are boiling mad. Look for a fight on the Convention floor unless Hillary finds a way to swallow up her loss and drop out of the race prior to the Convention.
But this will not do a thing to help soothe the hurt feelings on the part of Clinton supporters. So convinced are they about their candidate's abilities and credentials that a significant number will support McCain if Hillary isn't the nominee.
Although some believe that Obama's charming public manner will be enough to be an opiate for the masses, it would be a huge mistake to discount the candidate's glaring weaknesses and liabilities, as well as the fact that he is losing the white vote, the Jewish vote, and the Hispanic vote.
Thus, Obama's chances of winning key states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are shaky at best. His best chance is Pennsylvania, but he has already insulted millions in the state by portraying them essentially as cousin-humpin' rednecks who cling to their guns and religion out of fear.
Florida's large senior population, which includes a large number of Jews, will be a big problem for Obama. And this is not even taking into consideration Florida's massive Cuban-American population that already views the Senator with deep suspicion.
Ohio is a toss-up. But McCain has as good a chance as any to beat Obama in a state that has historically gone Republican in key elections.
And as for Hillary, perhaps the only vindication she can get out of the whole thing is knowing that in attempting to appease the Obama people, the elites within her Party have probably handed McCain a gift on a golden platter. She tried to tell them Obama can't win the general election.
It truly makes one wonder if the Party bosses are as concerned about winning the election as they are about avoiding causing an uproar in their African-American base by denying Obama the nomination.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Frightened Democrats Scurry to 'Wrap It Up'
The Democrats are running scared. The big news today in Washington is that the big wigs in the Party fear that the great divide created by the Hillary-Obama feud is playing into the hands of McCain and may 'cost them the White House,' as one network put it.
First of all, the assumption that the White House is the Democrats' to lose is quite a giant leap into fantasy land. There have never been any guarantees especially as the race has progressed, highlighting the multiple weaknesses of the two potential nominees.
Further, John McCain has already made significant inroads into the Democratic Party's voter base. He will get millions of Democratic votes no matter who the nominee of the Party may be.
The most ominous prospect, however, is that McCain will more than double his support among Dems if either Hillary or Obama is forced out of the race. So deep and scathing have been the wounds created by the feud that supporters of either candidate state that if their 'guy' loses the nomination they will vote for McCain rather than support their Party's nominee.
This has got to have the Party big wigs bent over a toilet bowl somewhere.
Thus, the big wigs emerged today to say that 'it's time to wrap it up.' No longer do they want this divisive campaign to continue. They want 'Party unity.'
Just exactly how they wish to accomplish this is the million dollar question.
Hillary responded by stating there was no way she was pulling out of the race. And why should she? She is headed toward a big win in Pennsylvania in all likelihood, and the Obama bandwagon has lost at least one of its wheels in recent weeks. He may not win any other major primary.
The mainstream media's spin on this, of course, is that 'there is no way Hillary can win when one looks at the numbers.' What they fail to tell you is that in the present scenario there is no way Obama can win when one looks at the numbers, either.
Though one candidate may well have more delegates than the other, neither will have enough to declare victory.
Thus, either the 'Super-delegates' will be forced to choose the candidate--a scenario that will surely split the Party even further--or the fight will be taken to the floor of the Democratic National Convention.
Neither option holds a positive outcome.
First of all, the assumption that the White House is the Democrats' to lose is quite a giant leap into fantasy land. There have never been any guarantees especially as the race has progressed, highlighting the multiple weaknesses of the two potential nominees.
Further, John McCain has already made significant inroads into the Democratic Party's voter base. He will get millions of Democratic votes no matter who the nominee of the Party may be.
The most ominous prospect, however, is that McCain will more than double his support among Dems if either Hillary or Obama is forced out of the race. So deep and scathing have been the wounds created by the feud that supporters of either candidate state that if their 'guy' loses the nomination they will vote for McCain rather than support their Party's nominee.
This has got to have the Party big wigs bent over a toilet bowl somewhere.
Thus, the big wigs emerged today to say that 'it's time to wrap it up.' No longer do they want this divisive campaign to continue. They want 'Party unity.'
Just exactly how they wish to accomplish this is the million dollar question.
Hillary responded by stating there was no way she was pulling out of the race. And why should she? She is headed toward a big win in Pennsylvania in all likelihood, and the Obama bandwagon has lost at least one of its wheels in recent weeks. He may not win any other major primary.
The mainstream media's spin on this, of course, is that 'there is no way Hillary can win when one looks at the numbers.' What they fail to tell you is that in the present scenario there is no way Obama can win when one looks at the numbers, either.
Though one candidate may well have more delegates than the other, neither will have enough to declare victory.
Thus, either the 'Super-delegates' will be forced to choose the candidate--a scenario that will surely split the Party even further--or the fight will be taken to the floor of the Democratic National Convention.
Neither option holds a positive outcome.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
She's Only Trying to Win an Election
It just occurred to me that the reason Hillary Clinton has gradually sharpened her answer in favor of driver's licenses for illegal aliens is that she is only trying to win an election. It's just politics, ya know?
Hillary got into a truckload of doo-doo the other night during the Democratic debate when she appeared to give two opposite answers to the same question.
Tim Russert asked Hillary about illegal alien driver's licenses, and Hillary never really answered the question directly but stated she was against such programs but thought that the program proposed by the New York Governor had merit.
Oh, and by the way, the New York Governor is proposing driver's licenses for illegal aliens.
Hillary's opponents jumped on that non-answer as an example of flip-flopping in one single answer to a question.
In the days that have followed, however, Hillary, not surprisingly, has gradually, day by day, grown more definite in her support of driver's licenses for illegals. And the reason, for course, is not far to find. She is merely trying to win an election, and Democrats have a history over the past 25 years of appealing to persons outside the country to immigrate to the U.S., mainly due to the fact that the particular ones who have placed the nation under siege have come here for the freebies that Democrats historically can't wait to hand out.
With such dubious initiatives, voter fraud has skyrocketed. Husband Bill made it very easy for illegal aliens to vote with his no-I.D.-required driver's license voter registration initiative during the 1990s.
The trick certainly worked for him. Now it appears Hillary is taking a page from Hubby's playbook.
Let's cut to the chase. The bottom line? Democrats use these kinds of tricks to get votes, even from illegal aliens. Having a driver's license only makes it easier for an illegal to engage in voter fraud.
And with the overwhelming majority of Americans enraged by these antics of their elected officials with regard to illegal aliens, the only credible reason Hillary would support such a plan is to get votes from the 'non-traditional voters.'
I see a great backlash a-comin', however.
Hillary got into a truckload of doo-doo the other night during the Democratic debate when she appeared to give two opposite answers to the same question.
Tim Russert asked Hillary about illegal alien driver's licenses, and Hillary never really answered the question directly but stated she was against such programs but thought that the program proposed by the New York Governor had merit.
Oh, and by the way, the New York Governor is proposing driver's licenses for illegal aliens.
Hillary's opponents jumped on that non-answer as an example of flip-flopping in one single answer to a question.
In the days that have followed, however, Hillary, not surprisingly, has gradually, day by day, grown more definite in her support of driver's licenses for illegals. And the reason, for course, is not far to find. She is merely trying to win an election, and Democrats have a history over the past 25 years of appealing to persons outside the country to immigrate to the U.S., mainly due to the fact that the particular ones who have placed the nation under siege have come here for the freebies that Democrats historically can't wait to hand out.
With such dubious initiatives, voter fraud has skyrocketed. Husband Bill made it very easy for illegal aliens to vote with his no-I.D.-required driver's license voter registration initiative during the 1990s.
The trick certainly worked for him. Now it appears Hillary is taking a page from Hubby's playbook.
Let's cut to the chase. The bottom line? Democrats use these kinds of tricks to get votes, even from illegal aliens. Having a driver's license only makes it easier for an illegal to engage in voter fraud.
And with the overwhelming majority of Americans enraged by these antics of their elected officials with regard to illegal aliens, the only credible reason Hillary would support such a plan is to get votes from the 'non-traditional voters.'
I see a great backlash a-comin', however.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Democrats Begin to Question Hillary Candidacy
It is always painful to watch a candidate for public office attempt to appear to be unflappable while in the midst of being made highly uncomfortable. To most observers Hillary Clinton was feeling the heat in last night's Democratic debate although she attempted to appear unfazed.
Hillary took the heat from several different sources on several different issues, not the least of which was moderator Tim Russert, who hammered the candidate with questions about pertinent material that she and her husband ordered sealed until the year 2012.
The answer that Hillary attempted to slip by Russert, her rivals, and observers, was that the matter was 'out of her hands.'
No, Ma'am. The matter is entirely in your hands since it was you and your husband who ordered the documents sealed until 2012 to begin with.
In addition, Clinton took the heat from her Democratic Party rivals who are seizing upon her votes to give President Bush the authority to use the military against Iraq and Iran back in 2002.
Their castigations against Hillary seem rather disingenuous, given that a majority of Democrats voted with Republicans to allow the President to act with the power of the U.S. military.
A historical perspective is key here. Democrats were practically in 100% complete agreement that Saddam was a direct threat to the U.S. as long as one of their own, Bill Clinton, was in office. But once he was gone, suddenly it became politically expedient to appear to be 'against the war,' although most of them voted for it.
In this case, Hillary was right in voting for it. Early in the Bush administration the facts of the dangers of Iraq, Iran, and Syria were still fresh in her mind from her husband's administration. The thing she should be castigated about is her attempt to distance herself from her vote.
Her penchant for flip-flopping on a variety of issues is becoming all the clearer.
As one political pundit observed after the debate, once a candidate is labeled as a flip-flopper, their candidacy is in deep trouble.
Hillary's problems are compounded by the fact that not only has she flip-flopped on a variety of issues over a period of months and years, but she did so during Tuesday night's debate in answering one single question.
As B. Hussein Obama observed after Hillary had answered that question, 'I can't tell what her answer is...it seems she gave two opposite answers to the same question.'
Clearly the Democrats are getting nervous about Hillary the closer we get to the actual campaign of 2008. Her negatives in the polls are high, 50% of American women state that they would not vote for her in ANY circumstance, and scandal continues to loom heavily over her campaign.
But who would assume the role of front-runner? All of the rest of the Democratic candidates are a joke and so far outside the mainstream of America that they are actually frightening. This includes Billy Richardson, who was a crony of Bill Clinton and whose political ideology is nearly the same as the Clintons.
Further, the hero of many extremists, Algore, is no savior waiting in the wings. Increasingly he is viewed as a clown who can't even get his facts straight on climatology.
Hillary took the heat from several different sources on several different issues, not the least of which was moderator Tim Russert, who hammered the candidate with questions about pertinent material that she and her husband ordered sealed until the year 2012.
The answer that Hillary attempted to slip by Russert, her rivals, and observers, was that the matter was 'out of her hands.'
No, Ma'am. The matter is entirely in your hands since it was you and your husband who ordered the documents sealed until 2012 to begin with.
In addition, Clinton took the heat from her Democratic Party rivals who are seizing upon her votes to give President Bush the authority to use the military against Iraq and Iran back in 2002.
Their castigations against Hillary seem rather disingenuous, given that a majority of Democrats voted with Republicans to allow the President to act with the power of the U.S. military.
A historical perspective is key here. Democrats were practically in 100% complete agreement that Saddam was a direct threat to the U.S. as long as one of their own, Bill Clinton, was in office. But once he was gone, suddenly it became politically expedient to appear to be 'against the war,' although most of them voted for it.
In this case, Hillary was right in voting for it. Early in the Bush administration the facts of the dangers of Iraq, Iran, and Syria were still fresh in her mind from her husband's administration. The thing she should be castigated about is her attempt to distance herself from her vote.
Her penchant for flip-flopping on a variety of issues is becoming all the clearer.
As one political pundit observed after the debate, once a candidate is labeled as a flip-flopper, their candidacy is in deep trouble.
Hillary's problems are compounded by the fact that not only has she flip-flopped on a variety of issues over a period of months and years, but she did so during Tuesday night's debate in answering one single question.
As B. Hussein Obama observed after Hillary had answered that question, 'I can't tell what her answer is...it seems she gave two opposite answers to the same question.'
Clearly the Democrats are getting nervous about Hillary the closer we get to the actual campaign of 2008. Her negatives in the polls are high, 50% of American women state that they would not vote for her in ANY circumstance, and scandal continues to loom heavily over her campaign.
But who would assume the role of front-runner? All of the rest of the Democratic candidates are a joke and so far outside the mainstream of America that they are actually frightening. This includes Billy Richardson, who was a crony of Bill Clinton and whose political ideology is nearly the same as the Clintons.
Further, the hero of many extremists, Algore, is no savior waiting in the wings. Increasingly he is viewed as a clown who can't even get his facts straight on climatology.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Shorts in a Bunch, Panties in a Wad
And the jackass bucks...
Congressional Democrats will be returning to Capitol Hill with their 'shorts in a bunch and panties in a wad' over the leak of the email concerning Congressional staffers getting inoculations before attending NASCAR events.
Naturally the Dems will attempt to downplay the flap, along with tons of help from the mainstream media that now considers the whole thing a non-issue. Even NASCAR has squelched talk about the incident, the result of a lot of jaw-boning from their friends in the North Carolina Democratic Party.
One Party official in North Carolina stated that the Party's 'business interests' with NASCAR should help to soothe any ruffled feathers over the public relations nightmare resulting from the suggestion that Democratic staffers should get their shots 'due to the increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases, tetanus, and other maladies,' as if NASCAR events are just oozing with canker sores and warts as opposed to, say, an afternoon watching the Pats play football in New England.
And NASCAR certainly makes cozy with North Carolina Democrats. After all, liberals are firmly in control of the state. The Governor's office, the Lt. Governor's office, the Legislature, and one U.S. Senate seat are all held by Dems. It makes good business sense for NASCAR to appear politically neutral.
Yet NASCAR fans in general view Democrats with a wary eye. And with the latest snub, the icing may well be on the cake as most fans simply flip the proverbial finger to the Dems for their callous, condescending attitude, in addition to their previous transgressions regarding the flag, patriotism, the military, and at least a hundred and one other issues that put them at odds with the vast American heartland.
These are issues that doom candidacies among a significant portion of the population. And to suggest that these everyday, honest, down-to-earth citizens who happen to enjoy auto racing are just dripping with dangerous fluids that a mere sneeze could transmit is so far over the top as to be downright comical.
Such things can kill political campaigns.
And the Democrats know it.
Thus, whether you or I hear anything about it or not, you can bet your last drop of penicillin that the Dems in Washington are irked beyond all measure that an email that insults tens of millions of citizens was leaked to the media.
The doors may be closed when the emotions fly at the Capitol over this, but we can rest assured that behind those closed doors the jackasses are bucking.
Congressional Democrats will be returning to Capitol Hill with their 'shorts in a bunch and panties in a wad' over the leak of the email concerning Congressional staffers getting inoculations before attending NASCAR events.
Naturally the Dems will attempt to downplay the flap, along with tons of help from the mainstream media that now considers the whole thing a non-issue. Even NASCAR has squelched talk about the incident, the result of a lot of jaw-boning from their friends in the North Carolina Democratic Party.
One Party official in North Carolina stated that the Party's 'business interests' with NASCAR should help to soothe any ruffled feathers over the public relations nightmare resulting from the suggestion that Democratic staffers should get their shots 'due to the increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases, tetanus, and other maladies,' as if NASCAR events are just oozing with canker sores and warts as opposed to, say, an afternoon watching the Pats play football in New England.
And NASCAR certainly makes cozy with North Carolina Democrats. After all, liberals are firmly in control of the state. The Governor's office, the Lt. Governor's office, the Legislature, and one U.S. Senate seat are all held by Dems. It makes good business sense for NASCAR to appear politically neutral.
Yet NASCAR fans in general view Democrats with a wary eye. And with the latest snub, the icing may well be on the cake as most fans simply flip the proverbial finger to the Dems for their callous, condescending attitude, in addition to their previous transgressions regarding the flag, patriotism, the military, and at least a hundred and one other issues that put them at odds with the vast American heartland.
These are issues that doom candidacies among a significant portion of the population. And to suggest that these everyday, honest, down-to-earth citizens who happen to enjoy auto racing are just dripping with dangerous fluids that a mere sneeze could transmit is so far over the top as to be downright comical.
Such things can kill political campaigns.
And the Democrats know it.
Thus, whether you or I hear anything about it or not, you can bet your last drop of penicillin that the Dems in Washington are irked beyond all measure that an email that insults tens of millions of citizens was leaked to the media.
The doors may be closed when the emotions fly at the Capitol over this, but we can rest assured that behind those closed doors the jackasses are bucking.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Hillary's 'McGovernite' Plan to Buy Votes
How does a candidate who is dogged by high negatives in the polls and constantly brewing scandals gain an advantage in the race for the White House?
Promise free money to the masses.
In a speech delivered on Friday Hillary Clinton stated that she 'likes the idea of giving $5000 dollars to each baby born in America.' Hillary would like for the taxpayers to fund accounts for each baby born in the U.S. to the tune of $5000 a piece, so that when they graduate from high school they will have money to spend for college or other worthy endeavors.
I can just hear the uninformed masses 'oooo' and 'ahhhh' over that one. And they are being egged on by proponents of big government and huge tax increases.
The thing is, she probably bought herself roughly 10 million votes by simply rolling out the proposal.
In 1972 another Democratic Presidential candidate rolled out a similar proposal. George McGovern, the Democrats' choice to run against Richard Nixon, stated that the federal government should give $1000 bucks to every man, woman, and child in America.
Like Hillary Clinton, McGovern and his backers believed that big government can solve most if not all of the problems of life. All you have to do is to 'tax the rich' to oblivion, except the definition for 'rich' keeps changing.
In February of this year, the Democratic Presidential candidates claimed that 'rich' means millionaires. In seven short months that definition has changed significantly. Rich now means that you make roughly $90,000 per year, according to Democratic strategists who devise tax schemes to pay for mammoth government social programs.
The problem is that $90,000 is a far cry from one million. In fact, a bread-winner living in NYC with a family of four would only barely make ends meet on that salary.
Yet in order to pay for everything Socialists who run the Democratic Party want in terms of social programs, those making $90,000 and above should be willing to withstand a sharp increase in taxes. After all, it's 'for the children.'
This seems to be the rallying cry of the Democrats and their government programs. Claim it's 'for the children,' and you make it well-nigh impossible for an opponent to get away with criticizing it.
George McGovern's plan to give $1000 bucks to every man, woman, and child in America back in 1972 was met with derision, as were most of his ideas. He was trounced by Nixon in the general election. Back then, being a Socialist was not a good thing. Apparently in the intervening 35 years we have raised a generation of Americans who view Marxism, Socialism, and its close cousin, Communism, as attractive ideas.
Thus, Hillary Clinton is applauded for introducing a concept that would have been met with howls of protest and ridicule 35 years ago.
During the 1970s most Democrats distanced themselves from the ideas of George McGovern. To be considered a 'McGovernite' usually spelled disaster for a Democratic candidate.
Today, the McGovernites are alive and well. They run the Democratic Party and are to be found in places of leadership in universities, law schools, the clergy, and particularly within some economic sectors.
I would suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, that such persons are of mortal danger to this nation and its Constitution. Constitutional limits on the legitimate role of government are ignored by these purveyors of Socialism, and we are poised to elect one to the Presidency in 2008 unless the masses wake up to the tyranny.
Promise free money to the masses.
In a speech delivered on Friday Hillary Clinton stated that she 'likes the idea of giving $5000 dollars to each baby born in America.' Hillary would like for the taxpayers to fund accounts for each baby born in the U.S. to the tune of $5000 a piece, so that when they graduate from high school they will have money to spend for college or other worthy endeavors.
I can just hear the uninformed masses 'oooo' and 'ahhhh' over that one. And they are being egged on by proponents of big government and huge tax increases.
The thing is, she probably bought herself roughly 10 million votes by simply rolling out the proposal.
In 1972 another Democratic Presidential candidate rolled out a similar proposal. George McGovern, the Democrats' choice to run against Richard Nixon, stated that the federal government should give $1000 bucks to every man, woman, and child in America.
Like Hillary Clinton, McGovern and his backers believed that big government can solve most if not all of the problems of life. All you have to do is to 'tax the rich' to oblivion, except the definition for 'rich' keeps changing.
In February of this year, the Democratic Presidential candidates claimed that 'rich' means millionaires. In seven short months that definition has changed significantly. Rich now means that you make roughly $90,000 per year, according to Democratic strategists who devise tax schemes to pay for mammoth government social programs.
The problem is that $90,000 is a far cry from one million. In fact, a bread-winner living in NYC with a family of four would only barely make ends meet on that salary.
Yet in order to pay for everything Socialists who run the Democratic Party want in terms of social programs, those making $90,000 and above should be willing to withstand a sharp increase in taxes. After all, it's 'for the children.'
This seems to be the rallying cry of the Democrats and their government programs. Claim it's 'for the children,' and you make it well-nigh impossible for an opponent to get away with criticizing it.
George McGovern's plan to give $1000 bucks to every man, woman, and child in America back in 1972 was met with derision, as were most of his ideas. He was trounced by Nixon in the general election. Back then, being a Socialist was not a good thing. Apparently in the intervening 35 years we have raised a generation of Americans who view Marxism, Socialism, and its close cousin, Communism, as attractive ideas.
Thus, Hillary Clinton is applauded for introducing a concept that would have been met with howls of protest and ridicule 35 years ago.
During the 1970s most Democrats distanced themselves from the ideas of George McGovern. To be considered a 'McGovernite' usually spelled disaster for a Democratic candidate.
Today, the McGovernites are alive and well. They run the Democratic Party and are to be found in places of leadership in universities, law schools, the clergy, and particularly within some economic sectors.
I would suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, that such persons are of mortal danger to this nation and its Constitution. Constitutional limits on the legitimate role of government are ignored by these purveyors of Socialism, and we are poised to elect one to the Presidency in 2008 unless the masses wake up to the tyranny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)